221–230 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is "Would you like some more?" really a good example here? It's not really implying that the person asked ought to eat more, is it?
It certainly can. For instance, when the speaker is my mother.
Example:
"Do you want to turn on the fan?"
(Standard imperative equivalent: "Turn on the fan.")
What about "It seems you do not have permission" or "It appears ...". Other option is "Unfortunately you do not..." They are like in the middle between formal and informal, or maybe I feel that way because in not native English.
"It seems"? So there's a possibility the program may be wrong and just imagined the error?
A quick internet search tells me that "it seems" can be used in many context with many slightly different interpretations, so _it seems_ that it's not a good option after all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Updating" in the phrase "Software updating" as a status message isn't a gerund though. It looks a lot like a gerund but it's really a casual form that drops the rest of the verb "[is] updating".
It's a participle rather than a gerund. Present participles and gerunds have the same form in English, but not in all languages that have these.
I don't even like "We" in UI messages. "We couldn't find that site." "We're just updating your computer." Perhaps I'm just an old fogey, but passive voice feels like the only right choice: "The site could not be found." "Your computer is being updated." The insertion of "We" feels like an imposition; the company who wrote the code reaching in and enacting their will with your equipment, using your screen as their soa…
The automated railway announcements in the UK say "I'm sorry". Rubs me up the wrong way, because there would be no way to identify who the individual apologising is. However, I think error messages should apologise in the rare situation that there is no constructive, helpful, language-neutral way to convey an actionable response in an error.
I'm curious to know which line/operator you've heard this on.
I've got my own pet-peeve automated announcement though: "This is a National Rail security announcement..." Oh no! Is there a riot on the platform? Was someone assaulted? No, listen further: "...If you see something that doesn't look right, text the British Transport Police on 61016".
Like, that's not even a real announcement, and doesn't every passenger know the number by now??
P.S. I feel that it's right to note for those unfamiliar with the English railways that GWR are probably the most effective train operator in England, and that the delay I had wasn't their fault. Eurostar, having almost exclusive use of HS1 and the Channel Tunnel, don't have that excuse available, but they were still impeccablely professional.
I don't even like "We" in UI messages. "We couldn't find that site." "We're just updating your computer." Perhaps I'm just an old fogey, but passive voice feels like the only right choice: "The site could not be found." "Your computer is being updated." The insertion of "We" feels like an imposition; the company who wrote the code reaching in and enacting their will with your equipment, using your screen as their soa…
I'm also an old fogey by some metrics, but I don't relate to that sentiment very much. I think that using "we" and "apologizing" is fair for most user-facing applications. It's kind of like the old adage: the customer is always right. Obviously the user wanted to accomplish something, and tried something to achieve it, but your software couldn't figure out what they wanted or didn't have enough information to do it,…
And that BS is exactly why we have all those entitled adult babies now.
The thing that ticks me off is when a website has a cutesy patronizing tone in its error message, and it was them that messed up. "Ooopsie! Looks like you clicked on a picture that doesn't exist!" Instead of "We fucked up and served you an invalid link"
404-like errors can well be caused by you doing Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V incorrectly, or some third person messing up a link. I am not sure if the additional complexity that would stem from teasing those scenarios apart and serving them with different messages is worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't been there myself, but I've heard that this style of communication is very common in Japan.
Yeah, Japan was the first thing that came to mind. Where, "That is very difficult," really means in English, "Yeah, no."
I don't even like "We" in UI messages. "We couldn't find that site." "We're just updating your computer." Perhaps I'm just an old fogey, but passive voice feels like the only right choice: "The site could not be found." "Your computer is being updated." The insertion of "We" feels like an imposition; the company who wrote the code reaching in and enacting their will with your equipment, using your screen as their soa…
It gets even worse when error messages try to be cute or clever. It's childish and slightly patronizing. "Whoops, sorry! This wasn't what you were looking for!" "Oops! You broke the internet. We are trying to fix it." "Are you lost? Let us help you home (link to home page)" https://www.callbruno.com/en/404 Just treat me like an adult and tell me what's wrong. Preferably with a googleable error code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Updating" in the phrase "Software updating" as a status message isn't a gerund though. It looks a lot like a gerund but it's really a casual form that drops the rest of the verb "[is] updating".
It's a participle rather than a gerund. Present participles and gerunds have the same form in English, but not in all languages that have these.
- a gerund form which is always the same as the infinitive,
- a different gerund form (verb-'ung', kind of cognate to verb-'ing', both derived from a Latin construct I believe), and
- a present participle
...in addition to the other declensions. It's fascinating to me how Dutch and English can be seen as two parallel derivatives of the old High German language, where as what we now call German has developed along a largely different path!
